If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   Republicans filibuster middle class tax cut. Wait... what?   (talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 995
    More: Obvious, GOP, middle-classes, filibusters, tax cuts  
•       •       •

6096 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Dec 2010 at 5:27 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



995 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-12-04 10:14:11 PM
captain_heroic44: working class



What is your definition of "working class"?

How do you define "work"?
 
2010-12-04 10:14:14 PM
Mrtraveler01: I would sooooo love to see the GOP try to do that.

Then argue that "tax cuts are stimulative" but Medicare/Medicaid/SS in no way stimulate the economy.
 
2010-12-04 10:14:36 PM
DeltaXi65: deficit is to hold the line on spending,

This is dishonest. If you don't increase spending to match inflation, you've cut spending. If I need to explain the economics behind this reality, you're not worth the time.

But that doesn't mean "holding the line on spending" can't work. If you increase spending only to match inflation, then GDP growth will eventually shrink the deficit (and ultimately the debt) anyway.
 
2010-12-04 10:14:43 PM
DeltaXi65: KingPsyz: DeltaXi65: Mrtraveler01: DeltaXi65: Mrtraveler01: DeltaXi65:

Obviously you like the hypocrisy and stupid of the current GOP. ;)

Serious though, I'm all for fiscal responsibility. But nothing the GOP has proposed is fiscally responsible.

I don't like hypocrisy or stupidity in either party, and I'm doing my best to stamp it out in mine.

What would be fiscally responsible in your eyes? Raising taxes and continuing to spend at the current rates?

No how about this novel idea.

Let the tax cuts expire and cut down on the spending.

How about we cut down on the spending and then see if we need to raise taxes to cover the rest first?

Like I said a while back, I'm not averse to raising taxes to reduce the debt if it's the last step taken and the economy is in a place where it can handle the increase. But until we get spending under control, I don't want to raise anyone's taxes.

jesus... there's no see... unless you're suggesting we cleave the defense budget by 60% or so...

didn't think so

see what I mean, republicans actually believe you can pay debt with minimal revenue...

We need to look for cuts everywhere, including defense. Revenue isn't the problem. Spending is the problem.


no... the only place we need real cuts is our insane spending on military.

EVEN THE GODDAMNED MILITARY THINKS WE SPEND FAR TOO MUCH ON IT!

It's the GOP greasing the MIC that put them in office and keeps them stocked with hookers, blow, and good bourbon...

We could spend half as much as we are now and still outspend every other country out there.

The problem is during WWII we had to privitize military development because there was no infrastructure to build what was needed to become a world player in a wartime sense.

When the war ended the industries that bent over to save America wanted the gravy train to stay parked and ever since military development has been a "free market" and has raped our pocketbook ever since as well.

The smart thing would be to have the military hiring the engineers, scientists, and fabricators and do all the work "in house" instead of paying full retail plus some.

It's insane we're paying for R&D for companies to compete with each other and then pay them pass or fail... and then complain we spend too much on entitlements for the poor... give me a farking break.
 
2010-12-04 10:15:06 PM
drewkumo: DeltaXi65: We need to look for cuts everywhere, including defense. Revenue isn't the problem. Spending is the problem.

So you would prefer to see Medicaid/Medicare/SS cut $700bn over the next 10 years over a tax hike on earner over 250k?


No, I would like to see a lot of spending cuts over the next two years, unemployment below 8% along with a few quarters of steady GDP growth before we talk about a tax hike on earners over 250k.

And if we get to reforms for mandatory spending, that would be great too.
 
2010-12-04 10:15:17 PM
DeltaXi65: from two wars, a devastating terrorist attack, a financial meltdown the likes of which we haven't seen in over a century, and the two of the biggest natural and manmade disasters to hit the country ever - you can't just take the tax cuts in a vacuum and say they didn't work. There are just too many variables.

LOL. Natural disasters didn't happen before the aughts?! There were never any wars in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s?! The fact that the financial disaster happened from 2007-2010 and you can clearly look BEFORE that and see that job creation was still far lower than every other time in the last 60 years?
 
2010-12-04 10:16:03 PM
3_Butt_Cheeks: :) Dissecting camerons trolling is so satisfying. I almost feel like I should get paid, but realizing his history of trolling...well. I guess just exposing his nonsense is reward enough.

Phil and buttcheeks show up at the same time to troll. Do you guys travel in packs or something?
 
2010-12-04 10:16:04 PM
"A second vote is underway on extending the tax cuts on incomes under $1 million. That, too, is expected to be blocked by Senate Republicans."

hehe, what?
 
2010-12-04 10:16:29 PM
FishingWithFredo: Republicans filibuster middle class tax cut. Wait... what? raising taxes on anybody during a recession. Because they don't believe it's a bad thing to accumulate wealth. And poor people don't create jobs. And Demorats spent a year going through the liberal wish list and ignoring job creation, and the economy shows it now. And people's money is theirs; not the government's

But play obtuse, Demorats. Like it's difficult to figure out.


The money that businesses make...
That they use to pay their employees...

Where does that money come from?
 
2010-12-04 10:17:56 PM
DeltaXi65: KingPsyz: GhostFish: DeltaXi65: Mrtraveler01: DeltaXi65:

Then how come fewer jobs were created last decade than in previous decades? Apparantly tax cuts aren't the magic pill to fix the economy.

To take a page out of the President's book, it's just as easy to argue that if we hadn't had the tax cuts things would have been even worse. Isn't that the talking point on the stimulus?

A lot of things happened in the aughts that hadn't happened in 70 years. No net new jobs was just one of them.

So just because the policy had no visible positive effect on the economy over a decade, it doesn't mean that it should be changed.

But the Democrats only get "two years to try [their] hand"?

Yes... Hey we spent 8 years farking America in the ass raw, you have 24 months to get us back in the "black" *nudge nudge* or we're taking the wheel back...

that's like going on a road trip with someone who starts driving while you're asleep and you end up completely lost. When you wake up you're told you have exactly 2 hours to get your asses back on course or they're driving the rest of the trip...

We didn't take the wheel back - all the guys in the car took a vote and said we should be at least be in the front seat again. You all are still driving, for now.


BECAUSE YOU LIED TO THEM AND SAID WE GOT US ALL LOST, NOT THE farkER WHO WAS DRIVING... AND THOSE IDIOTS WERE SO HOPPED UP ON MT DEW AND TALK RADIO THEY BOUGHT IT... NOW WE'RE GONNA RUN OUT OF GAS MONEY BECAUSE YOU GAVE IT ALL TO THAT HOOKER WITH THE HEART OF GOLD AND THE BAG OF COKE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DESERT...
 
2010-12-04 10:18:55 PM
skullkrusher: hehe, what?



No tax increases for anyone.

Why should the folk who pay the most not benefit?
 
2010-12-04 10:19:35 PM
KingPsyz: DeltaXi65: KingPsyz: GhostFish: DeltaXi65: Mrtraveler01: DeltaXi65:

Then how come fewer jobs were created last decade than in previous decades? Apparantly tax cuts aren't the magic pill to fix the economy.

To take a page out of the President's book, it's just as easy to argue that if we hadn't had the tax cuts things would have been even worse. Isn't that the talking point on the stimulus?

A lot of things happened in the aughts that hadn't happened in 70 years. No net new jobs was just one of them.

So just because the policy had no visible positive effect on the economy over a decade, it doesn't mean that it should be changed.

But the Democrats only get "two years to try [their] hand"?

Yes... Hey we spent 8 years farking America in the ass raw, you have 24 months to get us back in the "black" *nudge nudge* or we're taking the wheel back...

that's like going on a road trip with someone who starts driving while you're asleep and you end up completely lost. When you wake up you're told you have exactly 2 hours to get your asses back on course or they're driving the rest of the trip...

We didn't take the wheel back - all the guys in the car took a vote and said we should be at least be in the front seat again. You all are still driving, for now.

BECAUSE YOU LIED TO THEM AND SAID WE GOT US ALL LOST, NOT THE farkER WHO WAS DRIVING... AND THOSE IDIOTS WERE SO HOPPED UP ON MT DEW AND TALK RADIO THEY BOUGHT IT... NOW WE'RE GONNA RUN OUT OF GAS MONEY BECAUSE YOU GAVE IT ALL TO THAT HOOKER WITH THE HEART OF GOLD AND THE BAG OF COKE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DESERT...


Don't let the terrorists win....err I mean the right-wingers.
 
2010-12-04 10:20:06 PM
Mrtraveler01: DeltaXi65: The best way to reduce the deficit is to hold the line on spending, find revenue neutral ways of spurring economic development and let the expanding economy and expanding tax base increase revenues to the point where they catch up.

You do know that tax cuts aren't revenue neutral right?


I'm not advocating for any more tax cuts.
 
2010-12-04 10:21:28 PM
Phil Herup: skullkrusher: hehe, what?



No tax increases for anyone.

Why should the folk who pay the most not benefit?


How do you justify voting Republican when they just voted for largest tax increase in world history? In the middle of the recession! Unreal.
 
2010-12-04 10:22:17 PM
Phil Herup: skullkrusher: hehe, what?



No tax increases for anyone.

Why should the folk who pay the most not benefit?


because this is ideological and done at the expense of the ecnonomy and everyone else who could use the extra money more. I am super happy that you're whiteknighting for the GOP whiteknighting for people who earn 7 figures but don't be holding everyone else's cuts hostage as well.
 
2010-12-04 10:22:34 PM
DeltaXi65: Mrtraveler01: DeltaXi65: The best way to reduce the deficit is to hold the line on spending, find revenue neutral ways of spurring economic development and let the expanding economy and expanding tax base increase revenues to the point where they catch up.

You do know that tax cuts aren't revenue neutral right?

I'm not advocating for any more tax cuts.


Extending them does, because current projections into the future just figured the tax cuts expired and that keeping them going would mean there would be less revenue into the government in future projections.

/Farking accounting, how does that work
 
2010-12-04 10:22:43 PM
captain_heroic44: DeltaXi65: deficit is to hold the line on spending,

This is dishonest. If you don't increase spending to match inflation, you've cut spending. If I need to explain the economics behind this reality, you're not worth the time.

But that doesn't mean "holding the line on spending" can't work. If you increase spending only to match inflation, then GDP growth will eventually shrink the deficit (and ultimately the debt) anyway.


Yes, that's part of the point. Even if we simply freeze spending at current rates, eventually it will end up cutting spending in the long run. That's why we've suggested, at the very least, returning spending to 2008 levels and letting time and inflation do the rest.
 
2010-12-04 10:22:50 PM
captain_heroic44: How do you justify voting Republican when they just voted for largest tax increase in world history?



When was that?
 
2010-12-04 10:23:46 PM
skullkrusher: don't be holding everyone else's cuts hostage as well.



We are all in the same boat. No?
 
2010-12-04 10:24:57 PM
Phil Herup: skullkrusher: don't be holding everyone else's cuts hostage as well.



We are all in the same boat. No?


Only until we turn our backs and you kick us overboard.
 
2010-12-04 10:25:17 PM
Mrtraveler01: FishingWithFredo:

Uhhh....if you noticed I put parenthesizes and I personally commented commented that I redacted what you said because of sheer stupidity.

I take it you don't know what redacted means do you? ;)



Got nuthin'?

That's what I thought.

Don't worry, the Hive Mind will still have high fives all around for ya.
 
2010-12-04 10:27:04 PM
Phil Herup: skullkrusher: don't be holding everyone else's cuts hostage as well.



We are all in the same boat. No?


So people should be happy the GOP is fighting tax cuts for 98% of Americans because we're all in the same boat and we all should sacrifice tax cuts for us if the upper 2% don't get them?

calvinandhobbes.home.sapo.pt
 
2010-12-04 10:27:13 PM
DeltaXi65: Yes, that's part of the point. Even if we simply freeze spending at current rates, eventually it will end up cutting spending in the long run. That's why we've suggested, at the very least, returning spending to 2008 levels and letting time and inflation do the rest.

No. You're not talking about freezing spending at current rates. You're talking about massive spending cuts that will radically reduce Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. And if you're serious, you're talking about drastic reductions in our military preparedness to boot. "Holding the line on spending" in real terms means increasing spending to match inflation. What you're talking in real terms are cuts. Massive cuts.
 
2010-12-04 10:27:28 PM
Rent is too damn high: DeltaXi65: from two wars, a devastating terrorist attack, a financial meltdown the likes of which we haven't seen in over a century, and the two of the biggest natural and manmade disasters to hit the country ever - you can't just take the tax cuts in a vacuum and say they didn't work. There are just too many variables.

LOL. Natural disasters didn't happen before the aughts?! There were never any wars in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s?! The fact that the financial disaster happened from 2007-2010 and you can clearly look BEFORE that and see that job creation was still far lower than every other time in the last 60 years?


There is no ten year period, at least off the top of my head, in the last 60 years that has seen all of the stuff we saw in the aughts dumped together. Even during the 30s and 40s, things were more spaced out than they were in 2000-2010 period. Those things all happened but you didn't have the equivalent of two wars, 9/11, Katrina, the Gulf Oil spill, and the 9/08 financial meltdown all happening at the same time. It was a crazy time.
 
2010-12-04 10:28:12 PM
FishingWithFredo:

Hey, I'm not the one who doesn't know what redacted means. Not my fault you look so silly right now. ;)
 
2010-12-04 10:28:31 PM
Phil Herup: skullkrusher: don't be holding everyone else's cuts hostage as well.



We are all in the same boat. No?


nope, I don't buy the all-for-one bullshiat when we're talking about the less well off I am certainly not buying into it for a guy pulling down a million a year. Doesn't the GOP realize that government debt can crowd out private investment? Why do they hate private capital investment so much?
 
2010-12-04 10:29:38 PM
Phil Herup: skullkrusher: don't be holding everyone else's cuts hostage as well.



We are all in the same boat. No?


It's kinda neat being in a crowd on a glass floor.

Until some jackass starts swinging a sledge hammer at it.
 
2010-12-04 10:29:40 PM
DeltaXi65: There is no ten year period, at least off the top of my head, in the last 60 years that has seen all of the stuff we saw in the aughts dumped together. Even during the 30s and 40s, things were more spaced out than they were in 2000-2010 period. Those things all happened but you didn't have the equivalent of two wars, 9/11, Katrina, the Gulf Oil spill, and the 9/08 financial meltdown all happening at the same time. It was a crazy time.

You're simply unaware of history if you believe the aughts were the WORST DECADE EVAR!!!
 
2010-12-04 10:30:19 PM
Mrtraveler01: So people should be happy the GOP is fighting tax cuts for 98% of Americans because we're all in the same boat and we all should sacrifice tax cuts for us if the upper 2% don't get them?



Why you do hate the little 2% minority?

Why can't everyone keep their same tax rates?

Why does only one group have to get a tax hike? Especially when that one group already pays the highest rate?
 
2010-12-04 10:30:48 PM
DeltaXi65: Rent is too damn high: DeltaXi65: from two wars, a devastating terrorist attack, a financial meltdown the likes of which we haven't seen in over a century, and the two of the biggest natural and manmade disasters to hit the country ever - you can't just take the tax cuts in a vacuum and say they didn't work. There are just too many variables.

LOL. Natural disasters didn't happen before the aughts?! There were never any wars in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s?! The fact that the financial disaster happened from 2007-2010 and you can clearly look BEFORE that and see that job creation was still far lower than every other time in the last 60 years?

There is no ten year period, at least off the top of my head, in the last 60 years that has seen all of the stuff we saw in the aughts dumped together. Even during the 30s and 40s, things were more spaced out than they were in 2000-2010 period. Those things all happened but you didn't have the equivalent of two wars, 9/11, Katrina, the Gulf Oil spill, and the 9/08 financial meltdown all happening at the same time. It was a crazy time.


Way to cover your ass there. I mean the 80's only had a huge earthquake in California, a recession, an oil spill, and tensions with countries abroad. It was a crazy time.
 
2010-12-04 10:31:01 PM
Mrtraveler01: DeltaXi65: Mrtraveler01: DeltaXi65: The best way to reduce the deficit is to hold the line on spending, find revenue neutral ways of spurring economic development and let the expanding economy and expanding tax base increase revenues to the point where they catch up.

You do know that tax cuts aren't revenue neutral right?

I'm not advocating for any more tax cuts.

Extending them does, because current projections into the future just figured the tax cuts expired and that keeping them going would mean there would be less revenue into the government in future projections.

/Farking accounting, how does that work


Since when has government accounting ever followed GAAP?

Extending the current tax rates is not a tax cut. It's extending the current rates. The projections will change to reflect reality. They're just projections, not holy writ, and they're often wrong anyway.
 
2010-12-04 10:32:03 PM
skullkrusher: I don't buy the all-for-one bullshiat when we're talking about the less well off...



At what point do you decide who is "less well off"?


You can't do it.
 
2010-12-04 10:32:15 PM
DeltaXi65: Rent is too damn high: DeltaXi65: from two wars, a devastating terrorist attack, a financial meltdown the likes of which we haven't seen in over a century, and the two of the biggest natural and manmade disasters to hit the country ever - you can't just take the tax cuts in a vacuum and say they didn't work. There are just too many variables.

LOL. Natural disasters didn't happen before the aughts?! There were never any wars in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s?! The fact that the financial disaster happened from 2007-2010 and you can clearly look BEFORE that and see that job creation was still far lower than every other time in the last 60 years?

There is no ten year period, at least off the top of my head, in the last 60 years that has seen all of the stuff we saw in the aughts dumped together. Even during the 30s and 40s, things were more spaced out than they were in 2000-2010 period. Those things all happened but you didn't have the equivalent of two wars, 9/11, Katrina, the Gulf Oil spill, and the 9/08 financial meltdown all happening at the same time. It was a crazy time.


With the exception of the natural disasters, almost all of those can be traced to causes in liberal republican policy.

Crazy times indeed.
 
2010-12-04 10:32:45 PM
Phil Herup: Mrtraveler01: So people should be happy the GOP is fighting tax cuts for 98% of Americans because we're all in the same boat and we all should sacrifice tax cuts for us if the upper 2% don't get them?



Why you do hate the little 2% minority?

Why can't everyone keep their same tax rates?

Why does only one group have to get a tax hike? Especially when that one group already pays the highest rate?


ah so we agree - cap gains and dividend needs to be taxed as ordinary income. Ya know, to keep things fair
 
2010-12-04 10:33:03 PM
captain_heroic44: DeltaXi65: Yes, that's part of the point. Even if we simply freeze spending at current rates, eventually it will end up cutting spending in the long run. That's why we've suggested, at the very least, returning spending to 2008 levels and letting time and inflation do the rest.

No. You're not talking about freezing spending at current rates. You're talking about massive spending cuts that will radically reduce Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. And if you're serious, you're talking about drastic reductions in our military preparedness to boot. "Holding the line on spending" in real terms means increasing spending to match inflation. What you're talking in real terms are cuts. Massive cuts.


I guess I should have defined "holding the line on spending." I don't consider a freeze at 2010 levels holding the line. We need cuts, and those cuts need to happen mostly in discretionary spending, including defense, not non-discretionary spending. Fixing the issues with non-discretionary spending is a completely different animal that needs to be done at the same time, but not in the same conversation.
 
2010-12-04 10:33:15 PM
DeltaXi65: Mrtraveler01: DeltaXi65: Mrtraveler01: DeltaXi65: The best way to reduce the deficit is to hold the line on spending, find revenue neutral ways of spurring economic development and let the expanding economy and expanding tax base increase revenues to the point where they catch up.

You do know that tax cuts aren't revenue neutral right?

I'm not advocating for any more tax cuts.

Extending them does, because current projections into the future just figured the tax cuts expired and that keeping them going would mean there would be less revenue into the government in future projections.

/Farking accounting, how does that work

Since when has government accounting ever followed GAAP?

Extending the current tax rates is not a tax cut. It's extending the current rates. The projections will change to reflect reality.


And revenue will be less as a result. But I bet you'll find a way to cover some ass when that happens too.
 
2010-12-04 10:33:50 PM
skullkrusher: cap gains and dividend needs to be taxed as ordinary income. Ya know, to keep things fair



Sure. Why not.
 
2010-12-04 10:34:10 PM
Phil Herup: skullkrusher: I don't buy the all-for-one bullshiat when we're talking about the less well off...



At what point do you decide who is "less well off"?


You can't do it.


How do you decide? You look at someone, see he makes less than you do, he's "less well off" - it ain't hard and it ain't arbitrary.
 
2010-12-04 10:34:24 PM
captain_heroic44: You're simply unaware of history if you believe the aughts were the WORST DECADE EVAR!!!

I'm not saying they're the worst decade evar. I'm saying it was a unique time period, with a significant number of really bad things happening really close together. So it's laughable to me that, given all those externalities, people are saying the tax cuts did nothing or made things worse.
 
2010-12-04 10:34:48 PM
Phil Herup:

I'd be happier with the tax cuts expiring myself. I thought we were trying to get out of debt/deficit.
 
2010-12-04 10:34:50 PM
Phil Herup: skullkrusher: cap gains and dividend needs to be taxed as ordinary income. Ya know, to keep things fair



Sure. Why not.


then we can keep our income tax rates the same.
 
2010-12-04 10:35:30 PM
Mrtraveler01: And revenue will be less as a result. But I bet you'll find a way to cover some ass when that happens too.

Revenue won't be less than the revenue we're taking in right now.

It may be less than we were projected to take in, but those projections aren't reality - they're best guesses.
 
2010-12-04 10:35:48 PM
skullkrusher: How do you decide? You look at someone, see he makes less than you do, he's "less well off" - it ain't hard and it ain't arbitrary.


Sure, but I do not place him in a different group though.

Same with someone who is moar well off.
 
2010-12-04 10:36:01 PM
I find it odd that people continue to engage with DeltaXi65. Well, not odd, but annoying. He's a ridiculous dishonest poster who is a complete party hack. He has basically admitted as such in the past. He's like a bot when it comes to GOP talking points. He's just not intelligent enough to argue deeper or, frankly, a good enough human being to every admit when he's supporting horrible policies which cause suffering.

But people continue to engage him, and perhaps respect him, because like CanisNoir and several other conservatives his posts are grammatically correct and not generally insulting (like this one is). He follows standard GOP protocol: civility in public + talking points + pure partisanship wrapped up in semantic and populist homilies = public respect
 
2010-12-04 10:36:06 PM
DeltaXi65: captain_heroic44: You're simply unaware of history if you believe the aughts were the WORST DECADE EVAR!!!

I'm not saying they're the worst decade evar. I'm saying it was a unique time period, with a significant number of really bad things happening really close together. So it's laughable to me that, given all those externalities, people are saying the tax cuts did nothing or made things worse.


did someone use the "how come we're in a recession if we've had tax cuts" one? That's a good one.
 
2010-12-04 10:36:14 PM
DeltaXi65: ]

How does war make an economy worse when usually it does the opposite?

No offensive, but everything you've said so far is BS.
 
2010-12-04 10:36:55 PM
Mrtraveler01: I'd be happier with the tax cuts expiring myself. I thought we were trying to get out of debt/deficit.



The gov't WASTES your money.
 
2010-12-04 10:37:04 PM
Phil Herup:

You sound communist.
 
2010-12-04 10:37:20 PM
Phil Herup: skullkrusher: How do you decide? You look at someone, see he makes less than you do, he's "less well off" - it ain't hard and it ain't arbitrary.


Sure, but I do not place him in a different group though.

Same with someone who is moar well off.


well I've had my Phil
 
2010-12-04 10:37:29 PM
DeltaXi65: Extending the current tax rates is not a tax cut. It's extending the current rates. The projections will change to reflect reality. They're just projections, not holy writ, and they're often wrong anyway.

I'm sorry, but you've said a lot of stupid things in this thread. However, trying to rewrite history and change how these tax cuts are described is quite disingenuous.

These rates were made in to law as temporary. They were defined to have an end. Thus, they were tax cuts. It was not a permanent changing of rates. That's how it was sold to the nation. That's how it was defined by the Bush Administration, by the CBO, by Congress, and everyone in between.

Joe Random on the internet doesn't just get to change what these are to help his argument.

If we are to extend the current rates, then we are extending the Bush tax cuts beyond when they were set to expire.

You've already made random statements about which decade is totally the worst, you have magically concluded that the tax rates won't affect the deficit, and you've somehow misconstrued the blocking of cloture and blamed Harry Reid for his dastardly tricks.

Stop now. Please.
 
Displayed 50 of 995 comments

First | « | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report